So rare for a teacher to explain the difference between the material conditional and an implication, the latter of which is indeed a tautology. This is just one example among many as to why your lessons stand above most others. Bravo, sir! 😃
The explanation of reductio ad absurdum using conditionals makes so much sense! I struggled to understand why it worked for so long, and accepted it as a thing I had to memorize. This video made it suddenly click for me. Thank you!
That is normal :) Thanks a lot! It's a spiral for learning. You always come back to beginning to understand more and more! You can also ask questions in the community forum!
Your teachings are good But I think there's a mistake in conditional side where you were trying to prove that A ^ B =>B The third one on the table. If I'm wrong please let me know
How about thinking Reductio ad absurdum in this way? Reductio ad absurdam: (A->B) (A ^~B -> 0) example: we want to prove "Square root of 2 is not a rational number". In "(square root of 2) ^ (rational)" we can find that it is false. so the first statement is true.
Copied from Simple Eng Wikipedia: "...the statement 'I promise that if I am healthy, I will come to class' has four possibilities: 1.I am healthy, and I do come to class. I have kept my promise. 2.I am healthy, and I do not come to class. I have not kept my promise. 3.I am not healthy, and I do come to class. I have kept my promise. 4.I am not healthy, and I do not come to class. I have kept my promise. In the second scenario, the statement is false, since the promise is broken. In other scenarios, the statement is true, since the promise is kept."
![Start Learning Logic 3 | Conditional, Biconditional, Implication and Deduction Rules [dark version]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tYXHlEBlJMo/mqdefault.jpg)
So rare for a teacher to explain the difference between the material conditional and an implication, the latter of which is indeed a tautology. This is just one example among many as to why your lessons stand above most others. Bravo, sir! 😃
The explanation of reductio ad absurdum using conditionals makes so much sense! I struggled to understand why it worked for so long, and accepted it as a thing I had to memorize. This video made it suddenly click for me. Thank you!
Thank you very much! I am glad it helped you. And thanks for your support!
Thank you very much for the great content, you are a life saver.
Very nice videos!
Awesome video!
Why doesnt this guy have 10 millions subscribers seriously???
شكرا و جزاك الله خيرا
Thanks！ From Wikipedia, reductio ad absurdum is Latin for "reduction to absurdity".
Amaizing work.
Remarkable! Thanks a lot. Danke!
Please continue when possible this series! :D
As an introduction series, it is already finished. Do you want a whole logic course?
@@brightsideofmaths oh hell yes sirrr
F, im already confused on video 3, mostly on the conditional bit but I'm just going to accept it 😭
Love the teaching style tho!
That is normal :) Thanks a lot! It's a spiral for learning. You always come back to beginning to understand more and more! You can also ask questions in the community forum!
1:44
double arrow means, that standard arrow (conditional) gives tautology
For some kind of reason it doesn't make sense for me without "that"
Your teachings are good
But I think there's a mistake in conditional side where you were trying to prove that A ^ B =>B
The third one on the table. If I'm wrong please let me know
Thanks a lot! Why do you think there is a mistake?
Where do you see T → F in the table at 2:18?@@refiloooe.kekanaaa3888
How about thinking Reductio ad absurdum in this way?
Reductio ad absurdam: (A->B) (A ^~B -> 0)
example: we want to prove "Square root of 2 is not a rational number". In "(square root of 2) ^ (rational)" we can find that it is false. so the first statement is true.
very helpful
At 1:05, why can we 'follow everything' if we start from false? What does that mean? Why is everything true when A is false? I still dont get it
You can read it as a definition. The implication should get the correct meaning of "if A then B"
@@brightsideofmathsstill not clear((
Copied from Simple Eng Wikipedia:
"...the statement 'I promise that if I am healthy, I will come to class' has four possibilities:
1.I am healthy, and I do come to class. I have kept my promise.
2.I am healthy, and I do not come to class. I have not kept my promise.
3.I am not healthy, and I do come to class. I have kept my promise.
4.I am not healthy, and I do not come to class. I have kept my promise.
In the second scenario, the statement is false, since the promise is broken. In other scenarios, the statement is true, since the promise is kept."
Thanks 😊
Are there any videos on your Steady platform that are not on UA-cam?
Yeah, all early access video are there.
Thanks for the videos Sir! Do you think they are good to watch to prepare for studying maths at university in the UK ?
Of course!
Go through Start Learning Mathematics and then to Real Analysis and Linear Algebra.
Also my website should help you there: thebrightsideofmathematics.com
@@brightsideofmaths Thanks Sir!
toutology
tautology
I am forced to subscribe for your channel because of content and your teaching style.
Nice :D
third part and im already lost
No, problem. You don't have to understand all the details in the logic part to move forward :)